Trump profited from kids cancer charity

Trump is quite the FAN of Charity events it seems!! I didn't realize HE could dance...?!

Trump Crashed a Charity Event in 1996 for Kids With AIDS, Danced the Macarena, And Didn't Donate a Cent

Steven Fisher, a developer, had reportedly given a lot to the charity to build the nursery school. While the people sitting around Trump were
concerned about him just showing up and jacking the Fisher's seat, the ceremony had already started and there wasn't much they could do by that
point.

As photographers took pictures, a children's choir sang "This Little Light of Mine," all while Trump sat nearby, looking like he was actually an
honored donor. Trump even did the Macarena with some of the children and stars onstage.

After the event though, Trump left without explaining his uninvited attendance—and he reportedly exited without even donating anything
either.

Here is the latest tax return information for the Eric Trump Foundation,
on page 46 it shows the the Trump National Golf Club was paid $87,665 to host the event. I don't know if 87K is a lot to host a large high end event
like this, but I do know that most if not all the big events that the company I used to work for (defense contractor) were 20K or more, these were
usually event held at hotel ballrooms and catered by the hotel staff, they would have around 1-2 hundred attendees with some kind of entertainment,
and there were usually 3-5 events every year.

I also wonder why this is being made into such an issue, the cost of hosting the event 'has' to be covered in some manner, the people working the
event are more then likely not going to work for free, the people/companies supplying goods (food, and other consumables) are more then likely not
going to supply their goods for free, so who pays them?
If Trump/the golf course payed all these expenses "out of pocket" so the charity event could be hosted free of charge, then wouldn't he/the golf
course be allowed to write that donation of money off his/their taxes?

From the article, it says that there was a cost that started at 50k and is now about 300k a year since 2007. Ok, so things cost more. They donated
over 11 million. Golf experts claim it is too much money for a tournament. Yeah, those are experts there. I mean, do you have any idea how many
people had to get paid at the club? You need food. You need facilities. Are all of those people and products needed supposed to be free? There is not
a Non-Profit in the world that would be able to do all of that it has to come from somewhere.

From what I can see with those quick data's (I'm no accountant): from the look of it the Trump's sent out over 85% of the money they took in for the benefit. The Clinton's kept nearly 95% of
all the money they were taking in the period referenced.

Okay, now lets compare some quick 'non-political' examples:

How Does Your Favorite Charity Measure Up?

The following charities are hugely popular with donors and appear on Charity Navigator's lists of most viewed charities. Do you know how much money
they spend on actual programming?
American Red Cross

The do-gooders at the American Red Cross do a good job of spending your money when you donate. They manage to keep administrative expenses at less
than 5 percent of their total overhead, and they spend about 91 cents for every dollar donated on actual programs that benefit the community. Whether
it's teaching CPR or managing a crisis during the aftermath of a disaster, the Red Cross puts your money to good use.
World Vision

Approximately 85 percent of income donated to World Vision goes to help stamp out poverty around the world. While they are still well below the 33
percent benchmark, they tend to spend more on fundraising than other highly-rated charities in this category. Nonetheless, if stamping out poverty is
your passion, World Vision does a good job with your money.
Doctors Without Borders

These brave folks at Doctors Without Borders go into the most deplorable conditions to bring healing to others. Your money here is well spent.
According to their website, about 89 percent of total revenue goes to supporting their programs.
St. Jude's Children's Hospital

St. Jude's Children's Hospital is known predominantly for their widespread fundraising campaigns. They pair celebrities with children who have cancer
to talk about the great work they do. The hospital itself is a research hospital that specializes in childhood cancers and other life threatening
diseases. No one is ever turned away for their inability to pay, and the hospital covers travel, housing, food, and treatment for the families whose
children are patients there. Perhaps more remarkable, the hospital spends about 27 percent of its income on fundraising and administrative costs.
Considering this is a hospital with significant expenses, the fact that St. Jude is able to come spend less than 33.3 percent benchmark is impressive.
Overall, they do quite well with your donated dollars.
The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy is focused on protecting and conserving water and land across the globe. They work on every single continent to address issues
of environmental significance. The organization holds themselves to the highest standards of accountability and ensures 71.2 percent of their income
goes towards science-driven programs, according to their website. charity.lovetoknow.com...

I fail to see where the source of outrage on this case is supposed to come from, oh, except that it's the Drumph's, and kids with cancer.

The one notion that Trump is anti-establishment and not part of the political club seems to excuse everything amongst alternative right trump
supporters. I was anti-Hillary too, but trump is failing hard. I'm not sure about this charity, but just watching trump over the past few months has
been embarrassing for the nation.

Since the perpetually outraged Hillary liberals are the ones in here blowing this waaaay out of proportion, and trying to smear the guy, it's
important they get a matter of perspective.

The reality is, for them it isn't even about the payout percentages, or even cancer kids, its just another excuse to screech and flail at Trump
irregardless of if the Drumph's went out of bounds here on the subject of charities and their payouts.

Meanwhile, if we're supposed to have a measure of gauge on this, all the rest of us (non-liberals [which there are millions of us whom are
non-liberals and also non-conservative]), well the CF example is the far end of the spectrum (like, literally) that's puts this case study into
perspective.

The Trump's golf course follow thru was par for the course the best charities out there drive.

So what is there to see here?

All there is to see here is more over the top butt hurt Hillary supporter outrage, which when you compare this case to the Clinton Foundation this is
like a hole in one for 18 straight holes scale of outrageous partisan hypocrisy.

No, what really sucks is that Eric Trump had to stop taking in money for this charity because of all of the BS left wing backlash back in December. So
the whining it actually causing those kids, and people in these forums, to not get millions. WTFG....I think you can figure that one out.

The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject and pointing out one
of Party A's faults — "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)

Soviets LOVED it!

It's an EASY concept to understand

The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject and pointing out
one of Party A's faults — "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)

But it came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and afterward, as
Russia.

Whataboutism — particularly directed toward the U.S. — was so pervasive in the USSR that it became a joke among Soviets, often in a subversive
genre called "Armenian Radio" jokes, explains one Russia analyst.

But whataboutism extends beyond rhetoric, said Dmitry Dubrovsky, a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

"It's not only a narrative practice; it's real policy," he said. "For example, the Russians installed a special institute to cover the
violation of human rights in the United States."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.